NationStates Jolt Archive

We were discussing terrorism in my Law class today, and I brought up three things that define, terrorism. I'd like to know what you think.

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".

My argument for this is: if you have two of the three or just one you cannot be labeled a "terrorist".

Political change and civilian target without violence: You're just a political demonstrator.

Political change and violence without civilian target: You just have alot of pent up rage OR you have military targets.

Violence and civilian target without political motive: You're just a psychotic.

You need ALL three.

What do you think of my assessment?

That seems fairly accurate to me.

According to some political theorists, you are a terrorist if you meet those three conditions, plus a fourth: your target is not Israeli.

No, but seriously, folks. I don't think you have to have a political aim. If your goal is to spread terror without using it as a force for political change, you're still a terrorist - you're an apolitical terrorist who sees violence as the end rather than the means.

- you're an apolitical terrorist who sees violence as the end rather than the means.
Then thats just anarchism... isn't it? you know the 'May Day' protestors an all....? :confused:

Then thats just anarchism... isn't it? you know the 'May Day' protestors an all....? :confused:

Or a plain psychopath. Its just mindless violence then isn't it?

Or a plain psychopath. Its just mindless violence then isn't it?
Yeah, pretty much. Terrorism implies a goal at the end of it, doesn't it?
Otherwise, it IS just mindless violence.

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".
Excusen Sie mein Englisch, but with "instigated" you mean to incorporate the fact that your chosen targets are civilians, not that civilians may also die without being specifically targeted, correct?

I'm just looking where we can fit the often-quoted case of "state terrorism" into this.

We were discussing terrorism in my Law class today, and I brought up three things that define, terrorism. I'd like to know what you think.

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".

Under that definition Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks.

Under that definition Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks.

One might argue that, yes. It's been stated however that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military facilities.

In either case, once you attack civilians, it stops being a military action.

So they were. Sickening as it is, the people were a target as well as the indurstrial facilities. In some cases, I suppose, terrorism is justified, if it will save many more lives then it will end. Essentially the same philosphy as goes with collateral damage, and killing in general.

One might argue that, yes. It's been stated however that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military facilities.

In either case, once you attack civilians, it stops being a military action.

Hmm, but the terrorists attacked the Pentagon too, so if one includes that as part and parcel of the "9/11" attack one could view it as a military operation in which the twin towers were a feint for the real, and military target. Hmm.

Do you think it counts as attacking civilians if you're dropping bombs on areas in which there are civilians but you're aiming for something else?

If the civilian casualties are an added bonus, rather than an unfortunate neccesity, the action shifts from warfare to terrorism, and vice versa.

If the civilian casualties are an added bonus, rather than an unfortunate neccesity, the action shifts from warfare to terrorism.
So it's all about what you call it?

Perhaps Ayman Al-Zawahiri should start talking "We don't do Body Counts!"

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".

The problem here is that it ignores those who instigate violent activity against civilians with intent to impede political change: a large amount of Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland would thus not be classified as terrorists by it, and similarly for many other counter-'revolutionary' paramilitary organisatiosn around the world.

So it's all about what you call it?

Perhaps Ayman Al-Zawahiri should start talking "We don't do Body Counts!"

Don't be silly. Intent is what matters. Do you disign your attacks to minimise civilian casualties or to maximize them? Do you strike military or logistical targets, or civilian ones?

Hmm, but the terrorists attacked the Pentagon too, so if one includes that as part and parcel of the "9/11" attack one could view it as a military operation in which the twin towers were a feint for the real, and military target. Hmm.

Do you think it counts as attacking civilians if you're dropping bombs on areas in which there are civilians but you're aiming for something else?

If your target, ie. you are AIMING for civilians, then it is a terrorist action in my book.

If you're dropping bombs on a military facility with intent to incapacitate that facility, and civilians are harmed in the process, I believe that falls under "collateral damage".

Pah. I don't write essays for nothing, it seems... *digs through My Documents*

Definition of a Terrorist

Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States began to experience, slowly at first, the sting of terrorist attacks. These were not particularly new—terrorists in Ireland, the USSR, and elsewhere had been killing people and destroying things for decades—but for the first time, the US took notice. A Muslim sect had emerged, largely centered in the Middle East, that preached a return to Muslim Law, the destruction of the western world, and the obliteration of the West's greatest, most ambitious, most powerful figure—the United States of America. What makes these people terrorists? What common definition do they share with terrorists of other groups, and what makes them different from soldiers or politicians? It is this: terrorists attack innocent members of a society to accomplish a political, social, or religious goal.

A terrorist is not a politician or common criminal. His* goals are not personal, such as revenge, hatred, envy, or greed. Instead, his goal is to cause change, especially in the areas of religion and society. However, though a terrorist seeks political change, he is not a politician or a voter—he seeks to cause change, but without going through the process set up for that change. The short cut is invariably violence. A white supremacist trying to keep blacks out of school through fear of violence is terrorism, but a murder is not an act of terror. Blowing up an office building with the intent to drive fear into American businessmen is an act of terror; burning down your neighbor's house is not. Likewise, when a Palestinian terrorist blows himself up in a synagogue, it is not the same as a murder of a Jew at the hands of an anti-Jewish mob. It is the intent of causing fear, and change as a result of that fear, that separates terrorism from other types of crime.

A terrorist is not a soldier; the principle difference between an act of terror and an act of war is the target and the intent. In short, a terrorist attacks a target that is not actively supporting the enemy's capability to wage war, with the intent to cause change through fear of another such attack. An act of war is the opposite—the goal is to defeat the enemy's ability to wage war. The line between the two becomes unclear when 'innocent' civilians are killed in the process of accomplishing a military goal. Of course attacking a member of a military, militia, or armed insurgency is not terrorism. If it is done by part of a present military, it is an engagement; if it is done by a small hit-and-fade unit, it is a guerrilla attack. One example of this is the Iraq conflict, in which rebel insurgents—many of which are from terrorist networks, but are presently functioning as guerrillas—are fighting United States and Iraqi militaries and police forces. The same goes for military and government institutions; attacking bridges, dams, factories, power plants, etc. is also not terrorism—if it is done with the intent of defeating the enemies ability to wage war. If they are done with the goal of causing harm to civilians it is terrorism.

Attacking a military target in spite of the deaths of innocents that will be caused by the attack is usually not terrorism. The strike on the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 was a military attack, but the weapon used was a plane full of civilians. Similarly, destroying an enemy tank that is parked under the eves of a civilian's house is a military attack, though it causes death and damage to civilians. The defining factor is how the civilians are viewed. If their deaths are seen as an unfortunate necessity, the attack is legitimate. If their deaths are viewed as an 'added bonus' or are intended to, once again, cause change through fear because of violence against civilians, it is terrorism at worst, war crime at best.

The greatest degree of uncertainty between an act of terror and an act of war comes when the purpose for the attack is to break the enemy's will. This sort of psychological warfare can be done through propaganda, assassinations, destruction of national symbols (imagine if the Statue of Liberty was destroyed), and attacks on civilian populations. Firebombing Tokyo in WWII caused incredible loss of life and property, but it served the purpose of damaging enemy morale, and caused a great increase in American confidence. The later destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (in addition to removing two vital industrial facilities) strongly influenced the capitulation of the Japanese government. Terrorists often function in this regard, seeking to force enemy capitulation because of fear of another attack of similar or increased scale, as demonstrated in the World Trade Center bombings. Two answers exist—one is that it is the presence of a nation behind such an act, and the need to defend that nation that justifies it; the other is that both are acts of terrorism but that there are some instances of terrorism that are justified. The first is flawed—ideology and expansionism has been the backing of military terror campaigns as much as defense has. The second requires further examination.

Is a terrorist—being one who perpetrates terrorism—necessarily evil? The answer—which cannot be breathed in public—is no. If terrorism is defined as the attacking of innocents to gain victory in a political, social, or religious objective, it is opinion, not fact, that determines right and wrong, good and evil. In all human action (as opposed to rhetoric), it is assumed that the ends justify the means so long as the ends' worth outweighs the means' cost. Take, for example, the instance of killing in self-defense. While some argue against its morality, it is impossible for a rational human to choose violent death when there is the easy option of saving himself at the sole cost of his attacker. It is, therefore, the examination of the ends' worth and of the means' cost that determines whether an act of terror is 'good' or 'evil'—and the result of the examination depends on the ideology of the examiner.

Many people and politicians speak of terrorism and terrorists, but few have a clear understanding of what a terrorist is and is not. Terrorists are not criminals or people with personal vendettas—they conduct atrocities, but with the intent of causing wide-scale results. They are not soldiers, though they often double as such—soldiers fight an enemy's capacity for war, not his people's will to carry on. Terrorists, while usually perpetrators of evil, are in the end judged by the value of the results of their actions—there can be acts of terrorism that are driven by a desire to do good, and have a good result which outweighs the cost. Terrorists are those who commit crimes with the intent to cause social, religious, or political change.


*Due to the lack of a 'gender unspecified' pronoun in modern English while there are 'gender unspecified' nouns, and due to the fact that I am not inclined towards being politically correct, any noun of ambiguous gender, in the pronoun form, will be referred to as 'he' or 'him' in the course of the essay.

Do you strike military or logistical targets, or civilian ones?

This just raises the question of when a civilian becomes a logistic or a military target: would a civilian builder constructing a police station or an army base be counted as civilian, logistic or military?

Don't be silly. Intent is what matters. Do you disign your attacks to minimise civilian casualties or to maximize them? Do you strike military or logistical targets, or civilian ones?
Perhaps in today's world a third type of target category could be introduced?

"The greates media coverage/psychological effect"

In theory, if on 9/11 the terrorists would have wanted to maximise civilian casualties, there would have been better targets, no?

Instead, his goal is to cause change, especially in the areas of religion and society. ... A white supremacist trying to keep blacks out of school through fear of violence is terrorism, but a murder is not an act of terror.

Same problem I raised before: would a white supremacist during the 1950s or early 1960s taking up arms to 'keep the blacks in their place' (ie. to impede political change) be considered a terrorist? Not according to the definition you have laid down.

If your target, ie. you are AIMING for civilians, then it is a terrorist action in my book.

If you're dropping bombs on a military facility with intent to incapacitate that facility, and civilians are harmed in the process, I believe that falls under "collateral damage".

OK, but then theres the problem of whether anyone can reasonably 'aim' a nuclear bomb, or most types of bombs for that matter. I.e Hiroshima with its military facilit.

Same problem I raised before: would a white supremacist during the 1950s or early 1960s taking up arms to 'keep the blacks in their place' (ie. to impede political change) be considered a terrorist? Not according to the definition you have laid down.

What if the wording had been changed to say "to affect political change"?

In that way, it can be construed either way, whether it is to create the change or impede it since political change is affected.

Same problem I raised before: would a white supremacist during the 1950s or early 1960s taking up arms to 'keep the blacks in their place' (ie. to impede political change) be considered a terrorist? Not according to the definition you have laid down.

The short answer: yes.

OK, but then theres the problem of whether anyone can reasonably 'aim' a nuclear bomb, or most types of bombs for that matter. I.e Hiroshima with its military facilit.

Officially, the justification of the dropping of the atomic bomb was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had military facilities, but I believe the true reason was to shock the Japanese into surrender by attacking these civilian targets.

Today, I consider these bombings to be terrorist actions. Whether or not they had a possitive or negative effect on history is down to you.

What if the wording had been changed to say "to affect political change"?

In that way, it can be construed either way, whether it is to create the change or impede it since political change is affected.

I would read the phrase 'affect political change' to mean 'bring about political change' alone, and not to mean to impede it. 'To bring about political change or to maintain the status quo' or 'in order to exert political influence' would work better for me (not that either of these would itself create a rigorous definition or terrorism though).

Interesting to note that according to Bolol's initial definition the French Resistance in WWII would be clasified as terrorists...

The short answer: yes.

Ergo your definition is too exclusive. Whether it is also too inclusive remains to be seen.

I would read the phrase 'affect political change' to mean 'bring about political change' alone, and not to mean to impede it. 'To bring about political change or to maintain the status quo' or 'in order to exert political influence' would work better for me (not that either of these would itself create a rigorous definition or terrorism though).

Interesting to note that according to Bolol's initial definition the French Resistance in WWII would be clasified as terrorists...

You're right, it would seem I did not quite word it correctly, as I do consider those who use violence to maintain the "status quo" to be terrorists.

Violence + Civilian target + Political MOTIVATION = terrorism.

And...if the French Resistance targeted civilians in their attacks, they might be considered terrorists.

But then again, the allies won the war. And the victors write the history books. We call them "Resistance Fighters"...to the Germans they were probably no less than criminals.

It's all relative, and based on our biases. I try to look at things objectively.

And...if the French Resistance targeted civilians in their attacks, they might be considered terrorists.

But then again, the allies won the war. And the victors write the history books. We call them "Resistance Fighters"...to the Germans they were probably no less than criminals.

It's all relative, and based on our biases. I try to look at things objectively.

Unfortunately what is going to be needed in any definition of terrorism is a mention of whether the potential terrorists are operating against legitimate or illegitimate politcal systems.

I have a Swiss army knife with a special blade specifically for opening cans or worms, and I could lend it to you here...

Unfortunately what is going to be needed in any definition of terrorism is a mention of whether the potential terrorists are operating against legitimate or illegitimate politcal systems.

I have a Swiss army knife with a special blade specifically for opening cans or worms, and I could lend it to you here...

Legitimacy is also relative, based upon our point of views.

And I happen to have a Swiss Army Knife already, thank you. It has all the bells and whistles and it makes me happy!

Legitimacy is also relative, based upon our point of views.


If legitimacy is entirely relative, then so too is going to be any definition you produce for a concept such as terrorism. As such the whole becomes an exercise in rhetoric rather than anything else - unless you are also able to frame it so as to include the primitive assumptions which underlie your beliefs concerning legitimacy and to express them as basic premises.


Frex...

Given that:
a.) every man is born equal,
b.) every man has the right to all he can amass by physical and mental labour,
and,
c.) that it is just that the strong shall rule over the weak...

we can define terrorism thusly...

or whatever.

If legitimacy is entirely relative, then so too is going to be any definition you produce for a concept such as terrorism. As such the whole becomes an exercise in rhetoric rather than anything else - unless you are also able to frame it so as to include the primitive assumptions which underlie your beliefs concerning legitimacy and to express them as basic premises.

Can you help me out here, because I don't see how my definition can be based on rhetoric.

Three factors: violence, a civilian target and political motivation. I don't see how that can be skewed, so give me a hand here.

terrorism doesn't have to be political. but if the ultimate goal is to kill the target, be they civilian or not, the act is not terrorism. the act must serve as a symbol of what could happen anywhere at any time, and thus instill fear into the general populace. i don't think the civilian thing matters so much. although military personnel are most often killed for the purpose of getting them out of the way, if i were to hang a dead policeman from a lamp post it would probably instill more fear into the populace than if i lynched a civilian.

terrorism doesn't have to be political. but if the ultimate goal is to kill the target, be they civilian or not, the act is not terrorism. the act must serve as a symbol of what could happen anywhere at any time, and thus instill fear into the general populace. i don't think the civilian thing matters so much. although military personnel are most often killed for the purpose of getting them out of the way, if i were to hang a dead policeman from a lamp post it would probably instill more fear into the populace than if i lynched a civilian.

Terrorism for terror's sake? I haven't seen many of those. From what I've seen, all attacks had some political motive behind it. And generally it seems terrorism is more effective when used against civilians, because it tells the populace that "not even you are safe".

With, that I need to call it a night. I leave the discussion in the hands of my fellow nutcases.

We were discussing terrorism in my Law class today, and I brought up three things that define, terrorism. I'd like to know what you think.

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".

My argument for this is: if you have two of the three or just one you cannot be labeled a "terrorist".

Political change and civilian target without violence: You're just a political demonstrator.

Political change and violence without civilian target: You just have alot of pent up rage OR you have military targets.

Violence and civilian target without political motive: You're just a psychotic.

You need ALL three.

What do you think of my assessment?


your a terrorist if you kill innocent men/women/children....for some god that someone doesnt happen to believe in like you.

i am supposedly roman catholic,and if i go kill budhists because they dont believe in MY GOD,then i am a terrorist....but if i kill them for money i am a scumbag capitalist,but i would rather be killed by a capitalist then some religous freakozoid...

i can get my head around killing for money/power...but not over some maybe he is..maybe he aint god.

not that i would kill for any reason..but please..killing over god is more evil then killing over money or power...at least killing for money is concrete and logical(too some)but killing over some god that may or may not be there is stupid.

plus i think god would sorta frown on killing innocents....but us capitalist pigs would try to minimize innocent deaths so we dont get bad publicity...plus they cant work for the system if they are dead...

harsh but true,i would rather be struck down by some evil asshole scum capitalist,then some deluded religous freak...

rant off.

we are building a religion.....some people drink pepsi..some people drink coke...
ok...if i am a pepsi drinker..can i kill the coke drinkers..lol :mp5:

Then thats just anarchism... isn't it? you know the 'May Day' protestors an all....? :confused:

no

This just raises the question of when a civilian becomes a logistic or a military target: would a civilian builder constructing a police station or an army base be counted as civilian, logistic or military?

that's easy. clearly, everyone on my side that isn't directly engaged in military action at the moment of the attack is a civilian, whereas anyone who at all aids the other side is either a military or logistic target.

Under that definition Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks.

Along with attacking military targets the goal was to end an war begun by the aggressor being bombed . Its a stretch under that definition of terrorism or state sponsored terrorism . WW2 was as much a war of armys as it was a war of whole societys . WW2 was total war with all the people in each country making a contribution to the war effort . People seem to forget or gloss over that fact .

Can you help me out here, because I don't see how my definition can be based on rhetoric.

Three factors: violence, a civilian target and political motivation. I don't see how that can be skewed, so give me a hand here.


I'm claiming that is all becomes just rhetoric because it has the implicit caveat that terrorrists do things A, B & C and are thus easily defined, unless they are the good guys (for example, the French Resistance).

Right. Terror, as far as I've learned of it, is a method of ruling by fear, or attempting to influence decisions by fear, usually in conjunction with violence.

Seeing how many anti-terrorist resolutions/proposals are in the works, I believe it is time to officially define what a terrorist is and, maybe more important, isn't.
I will draft a proposal entiteled "Definition of terrorism" OR "Definition of a terrorist" in which I will include state/state sponsored terrorism, but exclude legitimate guerrilla(sp?) activites, resitance etc.
Also possibly define attacks on civilians in a war a war crime, not terrorism.
That last part may discourage some nations from supporting the proposal, though.
I could use your help, Feil could be co-author if he* wants.
Feil: If you're interested, please send a telegram to Abygon.
*I assume Feil is male

Seeing how many anti-terrorist resolutions/proposals are in the works, I believe it is time to officially define what a terrorist is and, maybe more important, isn't.
I will draft a proposal entiteled "Definition of terrorism" OR "Definition of a terrorist" in which I will include state/state sponsored terrorism, but exclude legitimate guerrilla(sp?) activites, resitance etc.
Also possibly define attacks on civilians in a war a war crime, not terrorism.
That last part may discourage some nations from supporting the proposal, though.
I could use your help, Feil could be co-author if he* wants.
Feil: If you're interested, please send a telegram to Abygon.
*I assume Feil is male

here's some help .

What's an Insurgent? What's a Terrorist?

By Steven L. Taylor Published 07/01/2004


E-Mail Bookmark Print Save



TCS




As a student of Latin American politics, the word "insurgency" brings to mind myriad images and groups, from the iconic Ché Guevara and his beret to numerous Marxist guerrilla groups that operated in the region during the Cold War. Setting aside the wrong-headedness of their ideology for a moment, and acknowledging that in many cases extreme and unjustifiable violence was committed in the name of those ideas, I can't help but note the difference between those "insurgents" and what we are seeing operating in Iraq.



The difference is quite stark: even the most violent of Marxist guerrillas in Latin America were at least ostensibly fighting for utopian dreams of social justice. They fought against the oligarchy, they fought for the peasant and the urban laborer and their goals were to create a society in which all could live in peace and equality. At least on paper they sought victory to improve the lives of their fellow citizens.



Now, I will wholly grant that these were dreams of the most fanciful type. However, one could at least see a romantic struggle (as many on Left in United States did see) in these fights. And there were even cases where one could at least understand why the militants in question took up arms against regimes that were far from perfect, and in many cases openly tyrannical.



So while it is ultimately true that the fight to establish socialist utopia was both misguided and likely to result in new tyrannies (e.g., the Castro regime), there was at least a positive goal in the minds of those who fought. They might have killed to achieve their goals, but the killing itself was never the goal.



Contrast that to the black-hooded thugs who decapitated Nicolas Berg and Kim Sun-Il, or to the faceless villains who explode car bombs on the crowded streets of Baghdad with no concern for the death caused to civilians. At least the guerrilla wars of the past mostly (although by no means exclusively) took their fights directly to the state and the military, not to families shopping at the local market.



However, who are the targets and what is the goal of this current batch of "insurgents" in Iraq, and elsewhere in the jihadist movement? First, they target primarily civilians, not the state. Second, their goal is not earthly utopia, but rather a perverse view of the afterlife, which results in a very ugly reality for those unfortunate to be caught in their crosshairs. And last, but not least, they appear not to be driven by romantic ideological views, but twisted theology and a cult of death.



What are these terrorists fight for? Iraqi freedom? That exists and could flourish save for the mad attacks of terrorists. Do they simply seek the removal of the United States as an occupier? Then why are they killing Iraqis?



Indeed, as James Joyner has recently noted, the application of the term "insurgents" to these individuals is suspect. Citing Bard O'Neill's book Insurgency & Terrorism, Joyner points to this definition of "insurgency":



"A struggle between a nonruling group and the ruling authorities in which the nonruling group consciously uses political resources (e.g., organizational expertise, propaganda, and demonstrations) and violence to destroy, reformulate, or sustain the basis of legitimacy of one or more aspects of politics (p. 13)."



Under this definition, it is difficult to define al-Zarqawi's group, or any like it, as anything other than terrorists. Indeed, "terrorist" would be the polite term, with thug and serial murders being more accurate. For one thing, how can a new basis of legitimacy be created by indiscriminant killings of Iraqi civilians and of contractors working to rebuild the infrastructure of the country?



The classic understanding of an insurgency is a situation in which some subset of the overall population seeks to overthrow the existing government due to a severe disagreement that makes other means of settling political disputes untenable. However, the terrorist operating in Iraq are seeking chaos, not revolution, and as such they seek not a better life for Iraqis, or even Muslims writ large. Rather their only earthly goal appears to be death for anyone with whom they do not agree. It is this fact that makes our conflict with these types of groups a war, whether we like it or not.



In comparing the utopian dreams of Marxist rebels to the cult of death that men like al-Zarqawi seem to revel in, I would prefer any day to live in Castro's Cuba than in the dystopia that the jihadists would bring. While hardly the kind of choice I would ever want to make in real life, it is starkly chilling, however, to note the obvious conclusions that one would reach if one were ever confronted with such a decision.



As such I would like to see terms like "militants," "guerrillas" and "insurgents" taken from the mouths of the press and replaced with the appropriate vocabulary. There is nothing here to romanticize, nothing to extol, and no cause to seek neutral language. The appropriate labels therefore ought to be employed.



Steven L. Taylor, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Troy University. He writes daily on politics at www.poliblogger.com.

here's some help .

I'm not so sure about that essay. It makes a lot of assumptions about the motivation of Iraqi insurgents, such as that they follow a "Cult of death". It's hard or even impossible to know their true motivations, but if they have the long-term goal of removing Western influence and setting up a certain type of society, isn't that utpoian in its own way? Their idea of a utopia just happens to be a backwards theocracy. The article concludes that Communist terrorists are "better" than Islamist terrorists because they are fighting for ideals, but to me it just looks like they fight for ideals that we identify with more closely. While Communism isn't popular in the West, its basic ideals are fairness and equality. The ideals of Muslim fundamentalists are only really shared by other fundamentalists, who have their own reasons not to like them.

Anyway, good topic. I'm sick of the word "terrorism" being so misused. It tends to just mean "someone who is against me and doesn't have a proper military uniform"...

that's easy. clearly, everyone on my side that isn't directly engaged in military action at the moment of the attack is a civilian, whereas anyone who at all aids the other side is either a military or logistic target.
Har de har. Unfortunately, this logic seems to predominate in American news media; the exceptions are also fatally flawed, although in different ways.

Wars over ideology are always much nastier than wars over territory or resources. The current ideological battle seems to be one between a culturally imperialist model that uses economic, political or sometimes military coercion to press its will on other societies; the other is a culturally imperialist model that, uh, uses economic, political or sometimes military coercion to press its will on other societies.

Wait, I forgot which side is which now.

Anyway: the line between "combat logistical support" such as providing food, ammunition, cover and concealment for warfighters and simply living in a territory that's being fought over is a rather diffuse and grey line. The only thing you can really say for sure is that someone pointing a weapon at you is your enemy; everything else is up in the air. So it has always been; so it shall always be.

I'm not so sure about that essay. It makes a lot of assumptions about the motivation of Iraqi insurgents, such as that they follow a "Cult of death". It's hard or even impossible to know their true motivations, but if they have the long-term goal of removing Western influence and setting up a certain type of society, isn't that utpoian in its own way? Their idea of a utopia just happens to be a backwards theocracy. The article concludes that Communist terrorists are "better" than Islamist terrorists because they are fighting for ideals, but to me it just looks like they fight for ideals that we identify with more closely. While Communism isn't popular in the West, its basic ideals are fairness and equality. The ideals of Muslim fundamentalists are only really shared by other fundamentalists, who have their own reasons not to like them.

Anyway, good topic. I'm sick of the word "terrorism" being so misused. It tends to just mean "someone who is against me and doesn't have a proper military uniform"...

That is the reason I'm drafting the proposal:
To try to get guerrilla/sabotage/resistance activity excluded from the term "terrorism", but also to stop it being so that only the weak party in a conflict (meaning the ones resorting to the activity mentioned above) are "terrorists", but government forces and organisations are not.

Along with attacking military targets the goal was to end an war begun by the aggressor being bombed . Its a stretch under that definition of terrorism or state sponsored terrorism . WW2 was as much a war of armys as it was a war of whole societys . WW2 was total war with all the people in each country making a contribution to the war effort . People seem to forget or gloss over that fact .

Just because the aggressor nation bombed first, does not mean the bombing of civilians for a political goal is somehow not terrorism under this definition. Nor does the contribution of all the people in each country make it less terroristic since the definition of terrorism has nothing to do with with the scope or size of the terrorists. I don't think it's a stretch, I do think it makes folks uncomfortable to think of "terrorist actions" being committed by anyone other than "evil people" since we've come to associate terrorism with evil.

Terrorism for terror's sake? I haven't seen many of those. From what I've seen, all attacks had some political motive behind it.

Indeed so. I agree with your opening post (the three criterias)

But there are certain exceptions.

Read the book "The Quranic concept of war" by Brig. S.K.Malik of Pakistan. He was a protege of Gen. Zia Ul Haq.

Excerpts from a review

The instrument of this is Jehad — "the most glorious word in the vocabulary of Islam" — which both the author and President Zia describe as total war. "Jehad is a continuous and never-ending struggle waged on all fronts." Another point that Brigadier Malik makes is that the war should be carried out in the opponent’s territory. "The aggressor was always met and destroyed in his own territory," he tells us. It is puzzling that he should call this a ‘defensive war’, until one recognizes the Orwellian sense in which it is used to mean aggression. And what is the goal of this aggression — or of ‘defense’ as the book calls it? Here the author leaves no room for doubt.

"The central theme behind the causes of war as spelt out by the Holy Quran, was the cause of Allah… In the pursuit of this cause, the Muslims were first permitted to fight but were later commanded to fight the Way of God as a matter of religious obligation and duty." As a result, those who resist it are the aggressors, and it becomes necessary to fight a defensive war to overcome them in their own territory!

The principal tactical tool to be used in achieving this divinely ordained mission is terror. "The Quranic military strategy thus enjoins us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost in order to strike terror into the heart of the enemy, known or hidden, while guarding ourselves from being terror-stricken by the enemy." It is not hard to see that Pakistan has put this terror doctrine into practice in its proxy war in Kashmir, as it did in Punjab earlier and in Afghanistan recently. Its recent atrocity of returning the mutilated bodies of captured soldiers is part of the same strategy — of striking terror in the heart of the enemy.

But the terror doctrine does not stop here, for Brigadier Malik tells us: "Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him." That is to say, the enemy is to live in a state of perpetual terror. This is necessary in order to bring ‘justice and freedom from oppression’.

That is the reason I'm drafting the proposal:
To try to get guerrilla/sabotage/resistance activity excluded from the term "terrorism", but also to stop it being so that only the weak party in a conflict (meaning the ones resorting to the activity mentioned above) are "terrorists", but government forces and organisations are not.

It is true that terrorists are usually the weak side in a conflict, but that is just out of necessity. Rich countries can afford full military strikes, weaker countries or people usually have to attack softer targets, which often means civilians.

And Aryavartha, even in that example you gave, terror is not exactly the end in itself. The Brigadier says it is necessary to "bring freedom from oppression". And the enemy must be considered an enemy for a reason. Even though some Islamists often speak about war with the West for its own sake, other factors brought them into conflict. The West has done a lot of harm in the Middle East, and I think the number who would want to fight the West in the absence of this would be fairly low. It's just easier to inspire people to fight by invoking religion and emphasising differences.

And Aryavartha, even in that example you gave, terror is not exactly the end in itself. The Brigadier says it is necessary to "bring freedom from oppression". And the enemy must be considered an enemy for a reason.

Please read this part again. And of course, this is not what every islamist terrorist shares, but there are some who really believes in this.

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemy is not only a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into the opponent’s heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be achieved… Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon the enemy; it is the decision we wish to impose upon him


Also, among the backers of islamist terrorism, there are atleast some who very well know that nothing tangible (in political objectives) can be achieved by terrorism. Inspite of this, they continue to back jihadis.

What category would they be?

Even though some Islamists often speak about war with the West for its own sake, other factors brought them into conflict. The West has done a lot of harm in the Middle East, and I think the number who would want to fight the West in the absence of this would be fairly low.

The west is not the reason for islamism nor is the west, the sole target of islamists. You are viewing the current conflicts within the narrow prism of West Vs Osama. There is a lot more to islamism than Osama and his demands of removal of western troops from "muslim lands".

Please read more about islamism, its ideology etc here

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434314&page=1&pp=30

We were discussing terrorism in my Law class today, and I brought up three things that define, terrorism. I'd like to know what you think.

In my books, terrorism is defined as "violent activity instigated against civilians with intent to motivate political change".

My argument for this is: if you have two of the three or just one you cannot be labeled a "terrorist".

Political change and civilian target without violence: You're just a political demonstrator.

Political change and violence without civilian target: You just have alot of pent up rage OR you have military targets.

Violence and civilian target without political motive: You're just a psychotic.

You need ALL three.

What do you think of my assessment?

This is why the greatest acts of terrorism were the firebombings of WWII. The targets were the civilian populations of London/Berlin/Tokyo/etc and the stated aims were political: to demoralize the enemy and thereby bring the host governments to their knees. Particularly in the night raids, there was no way of knowing where anything was, so bombs were haphazardly dropped over the entire city. Industries were usually back up to full strength in under two weeks' time, so very little was accomplished militarily.

It fits all of the definitions of terrorism, that being violence against civilians for political purposes.

The problem that so many people have in understanding the defontion of terrorism is that there is no true defonition. It is just a word that all governaments use in one way or anouther to justify and otherwise horrible cause. Take for instance "The War on Terrorism" we are using that as an excuse to throw our military weight around. I didn't see the governament screeming terrorism when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Originally Posted by Santa Barbara
Under that definition Hiroshima and Nagasaki were terrorist attacks.

Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare with the intent of political change.